Blog Bits
- Eric Crampton reports on what he discovered under the OIA in relation to Marsden Jacob and how the Law Commission refused to get their work (concluding alcohol excise tax should increase 50%) independently reviewed.
- A group of bloggers disgruntled with the Qantas Media Award selections for Best Blog have set up their own blog award cheekily called the Air New Zealand Best Blog Award, complete with five judges from the left, right and centre. Entries close 1 June 2010.
- Whale Oil declares war on Fidelity Life.
- No Right Turn condemns the name suppression granted to the top Wellington “public servant” who was acquitted of assaulting his son. Stephen Franks also calls it an inexcusable intrusion on free speech and the principle of open justice.
- Tributes to the late Paul Reynolds from Bill Ralston & Janet Wilson, Brian Edwards, Russell Brown, InternetNZ, Graham Beattie, Peter Griffin, the National Library and many more at Pass the Source.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Blog Bits
May 25th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
I bet the Canterbury father who was recently convicted of flicking his son’s ear is wishing he could be acquitted of punching his son. Didn’t six cops attend that incident? Try punching your son in public and you’ll have the swat squad arrive in minutes. Typical of a corrupt justice system displaying the old boys’ network policy!
May 25th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
Except that the father concerned was convicted of punching his son as I remember it D4J.
Nobody hates the anti smacking bill more than I do, however, I am never going to support anybody who beats, punches or injures their kids and then uses the anti smacking bill as a shield.
May 25th, 2010 at 7:07 pm
I think I will leave it to the Supreme Court to decide whether Mr Mason punched his son rather than listen to a deranged fat mouthed cowardly smear. Who said anything about the smacking bill? Nutbar!
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/3701076/Top-lawyer-wants-to-appeal-fathers-assault-conviction
May 25th, 2010 at 7:20 pm
Is Stephen Franks to smart to be an MP.
May 25th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
FFS!
It is impossible to have an adult conversation with you D4J, you insist on taking everything said as a personal attack.
Grow up man.
May 25th, 2010 at 7:33 pm
Whatever blouse.
May 25th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
big bruv @ 6:56 pm
you often beat up on and pull no punches on the kids on this blog..
May 25th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
criky..!..i’ve got nine pieces from 09 i want to enter…
and i hafta say..it was fun going back and reading the oped pieces from ’09…
..i was able to make me laugh..feel..get angry…
whoar..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
May 25th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
heh..!..fat-slug as behavior/decorum-police..eh..?
yagottalaff..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
May 25th, 2010 at 8:13 pm
and funnily enough..two of them are comments /respones i posted here…
..that i thought worthy of publication at whoar..
and my finallists include a rigorous critique on national/key…an outright attack on the nine-year history of clark/labour.(in prose/lyric form)..
..and a seriously unflattering critique of a green party ‘do’..
now..you can’t say i’m not even-handed..eh…?..
.slaps all around..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
May 25th, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Bring on Fight for Life. My moneys on D4J he seems to have the anger
May 25th, 2010 at 9:07 pm
Interestingly, a commenter on Whale Oil’s blog points out that the “civil servant” is not, in fact, a civil servant. He’s employed by the state, but not under the state services act, which makes the term “civil servant” incorrect.
May 25th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
“Except that the father concerned was convicted of punching his son as I remember it”
He was convicted of assault. Have you any evidence that the jury believed that he punched his son?
A push, a shove , a flick to the ear are all assault.
May 25th, 2010 at 10:37 pm
Have you any evidence to the contrary? It’s patently obvious which version of events the Jury believed, that of the independent eyewitnesses who saw the punch and then later the Police officers to whom Mason admitted punching his son.
May 26th, 2010 at 10:42 am
Bring on Fight for Life. My moneys on D4J he seems to have the anger
Anger clouds judgement.
May 26th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
“he Police officers to whom Mason admitted punching his son.”
Dexter, where is your source?
“It’s patently obvious which version of events the Jury believed, that of the independent eyewitnesses who saw the punch”
It is not obvious to me and a lot of other people. A smack on the bum or leg is assault as is a flick on the ear.
There are a lot of people who believe a parent should be charged and convicted for smacking their child on the backside.
May 26th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
As per the Judge…
“It remains a case of an assault on a child, as it would have prior to the legislation being enacted,” the judge told Mason.
“You don’t accept the facts but you do say that in hindsight you should have been able to manage the situation in a calmer manner and not reacted in the way you described.”
“It is clear the jury found there was a punch and you admitted as much to the police.”
May 26th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
The judge in the case seems to look at things a lot differently than the judge who was on the case of the prominent civil servant who gets permanent name suppression that this thread was about. It would be great if we had access to the judge’s summing up in both cases.
I will quote the defence lawyer.
Defence counsel Elizabeth Bulger said it was impossible to say from the verdict whether the jury accepted the ear-pulling or punching had been proved, because the charge referred to both.
If the judge is correct and Mason admitted punching his son why did the police not charge him straight away? Mason went public and that was a mistake on his part. It was not until then that he was charged.
I wonder what the judge meant by “you admitted as much to the police”
If he actually admitted punching his son why did he plead guilty? I doubt if he signed a statement. Have you considered the possibility that the police may have lied?
May 26th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
“Have you considered the possibility that the police may have lied?”
No I also didn’t consider the possibility that the eyewitnesses who didn’t know each other or Mason got together and decided to frame an innocent man, they obviously then found a couple of corrupt cops who wanted to frame a man they also didn’t know for a crime he didn’t commit Maybe they got to the Jury as well?
Thats a far more likely scenario than Mason, the one single person who has every reason to lie about what happened being dishonest now isn’t it.
May 26th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
Dexter, I have news for you. Police do lie. Sometimes without much reason. More often when they have been provoked.
There is no doubt Mason acted foolishly. In the first case he admitted he could have he could have handled the situation with his son better. Secondly, it appears that he acted aggressively when some busybody started meddling instead of offering to help. Thirdly, he acted aggressively to the police. Finally, he went to the media. I seen him on TV. He does not appear to be a fool.
If he punched his son in the head AND admitted this to the police and the police let him off with a warning do you think that he would go to the media? He went to the media because he was not happy with a warning for what he considered reasonable discipline. This annoyed the police and they charged him belatedly if he in fact punched his son. I believe the police definitely had a reason to lie – a not guilty verdict would make them look bad.
If he punched his son he should have been charged even under the old S59. He allegedly admitted this to the police.
If this was the case the police were negligent in not charging him there and then.
Can you explain why the police did not charge him straight away on the day if he admitted punching his son?
May 26th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
“Dexter, I have news for you. Police do lie. Sometimes without much reason.”
Some rogue cops might, but it’s certainly not common. However it is very, very common amongst people whom have committed a crime and have every reason to lie.
“Can you explain why the police did not charge him straight away on the day if he admitted punching his son?”
Perhaps because of his two young sons whom he was taking care of? Evidentally he would have to be summonsed to court regardless which takes time and allows for the consultation of other parties as to whether or not a warning would be sufficient or if prosecution is more appropriate.
It’s a bit of a moot point regardless, you can continue to believe the one person with every reason to lie, whom a Judge and Jury did not find at all credible and I’ll go on believing the independent eyewitnesses and independent officers whose account the Jury believed.
May 26th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Don’t talk crap Dexter, if police had hard-core evidence ( not hearsay evidence) that Mason had thrown punches at the children he would be in a cell within minutes. CYFS would have grabbed the kids on the spot. Get real.
May 26th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
The stuff article about the “civil servant” seemed fairly clear. As I recall, there were two scenarios:
1. He punched his son.
2. He pushed his son into the car. That is, he used force to manipulate his son, but there was no punch (or other hitting).
There were witnesses supporting each story. The son originally reported to police that he had been punched, but some months later retracted the claim. The crown alleged he retracted the claim under pressure from his father.
So the jury had to decide which scenario was the true one. They evidently chose (2), i.e. that no assault happened.
May 26th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
So Mason did indeed punch his kids?…..
As for the cops, I would love to see a return to old fashioned policing, and end to the PC crap and yes, a return to the days where the ends justified the means.
A return to the days when criminal scum were sacred of the Police, a return to the days when time spent in the cells might mean that scum “fell” down the stairs a few times if they were uncooperative.
May 26th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
“So Mason did indeed punch his kids?…..”
No he didn’t.
May 26th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
mikey – i reckon bruv by DQ.
d4j will bite his ear off or something.
May 26th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Hi dime you freak. I did not bite Kevin Barry when I fought him.
May 26th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
“Hi dime you freak. I did not bite Kevin Barry when I fought him.”
Ha ha ha ha ha
May 26th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Ask him coward. There were many that witnessed the event big blouse. What a sick joke you are.
May 26th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Dexter says:
Since it’s impossible to compile statistics to support or refute such an assertion I won’t ask you… but I think, in light of your adamant defence of police honesty, it’s reasonable to ask you what amount of anecdotal evidence you have to support it.
How many trials have you sat through? How many judgements have you read? How many cases have you been involved with?
I’m just in the middle of reading a Supreme Court judgement in which a case brought against a former politician was thrown out as “no case to answer” before the defence even made a submission, such was the weakness of the prosecution’s case (The State of Western Australia -v- Burke [No 3] [2010] WASC 110)… yet millions of dollars have been spent trying to achieve a conviction on several different matters.
If one extends the definietion of “lie” to include “bringing prosecutions they know are not supported by the facts but hoping they can convince a judge or jury to convict” then I’d argue that there are almost as many cases based on a lie as there are on the truth.
May 26th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Repton, I do not know if you have been on a jury but a judge’s summing up has a lot to do with the verdict.
The judge has already shown bias by granting name suppression and suppression of the man’s occupation. I very much doubt if this had of been a tradesman he would have got name suppression.
I cannot even mention this guys job on this blog. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to know where to find out the details though.
As I say in the Mason case there are two possibilities. Either he admitted to the police he punched his son or he didn’t.
I do not accept that he admitted as much to the police.
May 26th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
Thanks for that comment Rex. I have not been in the police but held a job many years ago where the ethics towards your mates was similar. I worked for about a year as a trainee psychiatric nurse. This included killers who were deemed criminally insane.
A nurse was attached and injured not too badly. Four senior nurse kicked the crap out the guy who tried to escape. I was not there but some junior nurses who were thought the beating was over the top. No one would say anything. I am sure they would lie to protect others.
This would be the same for prison guards – which we functioned as – or police any where in the would.
When a requirement of the job is to lie to protect your mates I do not accept that it is unlikely a police officer to lie to help obtain a conviction against someone he has taken a dislike to.
May 26th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Dexter, the following is the case of a boy being removed from his father after it was alleged his father smacked him. Note smacked not punched.
Father discharged over alleged assault on son
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/crime/news/article.cfm?c_id=30&objectid=10646627
The police story in the Mason case is not credibly. If he admitted punching his son the police would be negligent of they did not stop him having contact.
Is it credibly that Mason said sure I punched my 4 year old son. Then shortly after refuse to sign a statement. It would be great if police were as honest as you think they are.
I suggest you read the book by Keith Hunter about Watson or watch the video. The police decided Watson was guilty of the Sounds murders. They then lied to witness as well as putting witness under extreme pressure.
May 26th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Oh yeah, I agree with you on that.
I’m interested, though, if you’re right when you say that you can’t mention his job. Has that been suppressed? It’s not like there aren’t many people in the country with the same job.
(yes, I’ve read Whaleoil’s post on the subject. Heard about it after the Dom Post reported that Whale was at it again, so I’m not giving much away here)
May 26th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
I am almost 100% certain that his occupation is also suppressed. I heard that on radio.